Ahmed v. Ringler et al

Filing 61

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/27/17: The findings and recommendations filed on January 4, 2017 57 are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's motion to stay 55 is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to supplement the complaint 40 is DENIED. Defendant's motion to modify the scheduling order 47 is GRANTED. The parties are permitted thirty days from the date of this order to file any pretrial motions. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ABDIKIDAR AHMED,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1050 MCE DB P

v.

ORDER

S. RINGLER,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

17
18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendant Ringler conducted unnecessary

19

searches of plaintiff’s cell on November 21, 2012 and May 7, 2013 in retaliation for plaintiff’s

20

submission of grievances regarding Ringler’s July 2, 2012 search of his cell. The matter was

21

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

22

302.
On January 4, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

23
24

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

25

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff

26

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 58.) Defendant Ringler filed a

27

response to the objections. (ECF No. 59.)

28

////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

2

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

3

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

7

The findings and recommendations filed on January 4, 2017 (ECF No. 57) are

ADOPTED in full;

8

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 55) is DENIED;

9

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the complaint (ECF No. 40) is DENIED;

10

4.

Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED;

12

5.

The parties are permitted thirty days from the date of this order to file any pretrial

13

motions.

11

14
15

and

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2017

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2